CFRL News No. 56 (2004. 4. 1)
Cold Fusion Research Laboratory (Japan) Dr. Hideo Kozima, Director
E-mail address; firstname.lastname@example.org
常温核融合現象CFP(The Cold Fusion Phenomenon) は、「背景放射線に曝された、高密度の水素同位体(H and/or D)を含む固体中で起こる、核反応とそれに付随した事象」を現す言葉です。
CFRL News No.56をお送りします。この号では､次の記事を掲載しました。
1. Report of CFRL に2編の論文が発表されました。
2. “The Cold Fusion Report” by S.B. Krivit and N. Winocur was published.
3. U.S. Department of Energy Will Review
15-Years of "Cold Fusion" Excess Heat and Nuclear Evidence
----------A letter from: New Energy Foundation, Inc. March 20, 2004
1. Report of CFRL に2編の論文が発表されました。
次の2編の論文がReports of CFRL Vol.1-5, 2-1 として発表されました。
最初の論文(1)はNHE研究発表会（1996年）で配った資料ですが、後に「常温核融合の発見」として本にしたわれわれの研究のエッセンスを含んでおり、ここで論文として発表しておくことが資料的にも重要であると思います。第二の論文（2）は、固体−核物理学（Solid State-Nuclear Physics）の基礎的な考え方を説明しています。この論文の考え方を使うと、ICCF10で発表したcfマター（ｃｆ-matter）や核変換における安定性効果を説明する物理を解明することができます。
(1) “Analysis of Experimental Data in Cold Fusion Phenomenon on TNCF Model*” Reports of CFRL, 1-5, 1 (2004)
*Paper given at The Third Symposium of Basic Research Group in NHE Project, July 3 - 4, 1996, Tokyo, Japan.
The TNCF model proposed by the author three years ago was applied to analyze typical quantitative experimental data obtained in these seven years after the discovery of the cold fusion phenomenon, i.e. the generation of the excess energy and the nuclear products unable to explain by usual physical and chemical processes occurring in solids with hydrogen isotopes.
Fundamental assumptions of the model, the existence of stable thermal neutrons trapped in cold fusion materials and their fusion reaction with lattice nuclei at boundary region were verified by the success of the analyses itself. Furthermore, the success of the model has given a consistent interpretation for the wide spread spectrum and the curiosity of the phenomenon denying understanding of them in the frame of the conventional science of nuclear physics, solid state physics and electrochemistry.
Predictions for the new phenomena are given to be tested by experiments
Reports of CFRL, 2-1, 1 (2004)
First of all, it should be mentioned that the term "the Cold Fusion Phenomenon" (CFP) includes nuclear reactions and accompanying events occurring in solids with high densities of hydrogen isotopes (H and/or D) in ambient radiation.
Investigation of the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) during the past 14 years revealed that CFP occurs in localized regions at boundaries (and surfaces) in solids containing a high concentration of either deuterium or protium or both. The occurrence is characterized by sporadicity and only qualitative reproducibility. The former means unpredictability and the latter different effects for the same macroscopic initial conditions.
Success of a phenomenological model (the TNCF model) assuming the existence of thermal neutrons in solids to explain CFP as a whole both in deuterium and protium systems suggests the existence of an unexplored field between nuclear physics and solid state physics related to neutrons in solids. Examining excited states of neutrons near the separation level of a nucleus and also excited states of protons (deuterons) in solids, we show the existence of new states of neutrons (the cf-matter) in transition-metal deuterides and hydrides, typical materials for CFP, which are responsible for exotic nuclear reactions in solids including CFP.
An excited state of a neutron in a lattice nucleus (nucleus at each lattice point) interacts with another in adjacent lattice nuclei mediated by protons (deuterons) at interstices. The result is a corresponding neutron band. Neutrons in this band form a high-density neutron matter (cf-matter) at boundary/surface regions with neutron drops (clusters of neutrons and protons) that makes nuclear reactions in solids so different from those in free space.
2. “The Cold Fusion Report” by S.B. Krivit and N. Winocur
New Energy Times のS.B. Krivit and N. Winocurが冊子The Cold Fusion Report (58 pages)を発行しました。これは多くの研究者とのインターヴューに基ずいて常温核融合現象の研究の現状を概観したものです。New Energy Timesのウェブサイトには、常温核融合現象に関する情報とならんで、このＲｅｐｏｒｔについて紹介しています：
このＲｅｐｏｒｔにおける常温核融合現象の評価は、評論家の書いたものとしては良く纏まっていて、妥当なものと言えます。重水素系と軽水素系を取り扱っていて、前者では過剰熱、へリウム４、トリチウム、核変換（ＮＴ）が観測されているが、後者では過剰熱とＮＴしか観測されていないことを指摘しています。これは拙著「常温核融合の発見」（大竹出版、1997）の表3、あるいは“Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon.” (Ohtake Shuppan Inc., 1998)の表11.2と11.3で既に示した結果です。次の事実は指摘しておきたいと思います：この事実を含む多くの実験事実はTNCFモデルを使って説明されており、このモデルで仮定された諸「前提」の量子力学的な説明が最近の論文1,2)で試みられています。
1) H. Kozima, “CF‑Matter and the Cold Fusion Phenomenon” Proc. ICCF10 (to be published). (Cf. CFRL News No.52 and CFRL website
2) H. Kozima, “Solid State-Nuclear Physics of Cold Fusion Phenomenon” Reports of CFRL, 2-1, 1 (2004). (Cf. the article 1 in this News).
-----U. S. Department OF Energy to take a Second Look at Controversial Subject------
LOS ANGELES, March 22, 2004 -- Coinciding with the U.S. Department of Energy's decision to re-open the case on cold fusion, investigators Steven Krivit and Nadine Winocur have released the most current work on the history and progress of the science.
"The Cold Fusion Report" is based on personal communication with more than 50 scientists from around the world, 28 of whom Krivit interviewed on camera at the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion in Cambridge, Mass. As documented in the report, prominent U.S. scientists verify the efficacy of this controversial discovery.
The report follows confirmation by U.S. Department of Energy spokeswoman Jacqueline Johnson, as detailed in the "Upfront" section of the latest issue of New Scientist, that the department has committed to a second review of cold fusion. Another story, tentatively titled "DOE Warms to Cold Fusion," will be published in the April 1 Web edition of Physics Today, at www.physicstoday.org .
The U.S. Department of Energy discussed a re-evaluation of cold fusion on Nov. 6, 2003, when representatives from the Office of Science met with a team of established scientists who have studied cold fusion for 15 years. The scientists reported that cold fusion is real, with results that are robust, verifiable and repeatable.
This review is expected to evaluate the credibility of current claims and, assuming they are verified, decide whether government funding should be directed to cold fusion research.
Although recent experimental results are promising, their commercial viability remains unknown. Scientists hope that new research will provide an answer to whether cold fusion may become a future energy source.
The 53-page report includes quotes from such scientists as Dr. Melvin Miles, former senior electrochemist of the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, Calif., who, commenting on an eight-year series of U.S. Navy cold fusion experiments, concluded, "In our opinion, these [findings] provide compelling evidence that the [cold fusion effects] are real. This research area has the potential to provide the human race with a nearly unlimited new source of energy. It is possible that [cold fusion] will prove to be one of the most important scientific discoveries of this century."
It also cites a senior member of the technical staff at the U.S. government's Sandia National Laboratories, James Corey, who expressed at the September 2003 Energetic Materials Intelligence Symposium that "an overdue revolution in science will arrive, [and] the reputations of cold fusion scientists and those who revile them may be reversed."
Although 3,000 scientific papers have been written about cold fusion, progress is underreported in the scientific and popular media because of a rift between cold fusion researchers and the scientific establishment, which has refused in its journals to publish articles relating to cold fusion.
In a September 2003 article, science columnist Sharon Begley of the Wall Street Journal noted of this phenomenon, "the only thing pathological about cold fusion is the way the scientific establishment has treated it."
"The Cold Fusion Report" includes the following findings:
o More than 150 scientists worldwide, including 60 physicists, hold that cold fusion a verifiable, reproducible low-temperature nuclear reaction, free of harmful radiation and nuclear waste.
◇ Evidence that the effect is reproducible and has been demonstrated in many laboratories around the world, through a variety of methods.
◇ Citations from five scientific papers which report correlation between excess energy and the nuclear by-product helium-4, a key finding which verifies the claims of low-temperature nuclear reactions. Historically, critics of cold fusion erroneously assumed that "cold fusion" should emit the same nuclear products as "hot fusion." Later research demonstrated that the hunt for the "missing neutrons" was misdirected and that the dominant product of cold fusion, instead, is helium-4.
"The Cold Fusion Report" also includes evidence of the veracity of cold fusion in several previously unreleased documents:
◇ A 1993 report to the Pentagon by former JASONS chairman Richard Garwin and by chemistry professor Nathan Lewis of Caltech that supports the findings of "excess heat," providing key evidence for the cold fusion effect.
Four years earlier, Lewis tried unsuccessfully to replicate the cold fusion effect and subsequently became one of the most outspoken critics of cold fusion.
◇ A 1991 report by chemistry professor Alan Bard of the University of Texas, vocal critic of cold fusion who confirmed the presence of "excess heat" in an independent laboratory experiment at SRI International.
◇ Two 1995 papers by scientists from Amoco Production Co. and Shell Research reporting positive, unambiguous evidence from their own cold fusion experiments.
Part 1 of "The Cold Fusion Report" examines factors that led the scientific community to a premature rejection of the validity of cold fusion and explains why developments in cold fusion have gone virtually unreported. It reviews studies revealing that the early experiments conducted by prominent laboratories that were presumed to have debunked cold fusion were in fact seriously flawed.
Part 2 of the report discusses the current status of cold fusion research. It reviews advances over the past 15 years and identifies the major unanswered questions. The report concludes with a glimpse of possible future applications for cold fusion technology.
"The Cold Fusion Report" was reviewed for technical accuracy by two physicists with decades of experience in conventional fusion, one of whom has studied cold fusion, as well. The other, a skeptical plasma physicist who works for a major U.S. fusion research center, described the report as "correct, readable, even and unbiased, suitable for reaching physicists and educated people."
(310) 721-5919 (Cell)
(310) 470-8189 (Office)
3. U.S. Department of Energy Will Review 15-Years of "Cold
Fusion" Excess Heat and Nuclear Evidence
----------A letter from: New Energy Foundation, Inc. March 20, 2004
(A Nonprofit, 501(c)(3) Corporation www.infinite-energy.com )-----------
次に引用するのは、Dr. David Nagelが転送してくれたもので、Ｄｒ．Ｅ．Ｍａｌｌｏｖｅ（New Energy Foundation）が不特定の読者に宛てて送ったメールです。前項の記事とも関連して、ＤＯＥの常温核融合現象再評価の可能性を報じています。
Exciting news that has circulated for about a month in the low-energy nuclear
reactions field (LENR, a.k.a. "cold fusion") has now been confirmed. The
DOE has agreed to perform a review of the entire "cold fusion" (LENR)
question. The U.S. Department of Energy has made a startling reversal of its
past refusal to evaluate with a fresh look the large body of experimental
evidence that now supports highly anomalous non-chemical magnitude excess heat
phenomena in some hydrogen systems, plus associated nuclear anomalies. The
details of how the review will be conducted and when it is to begin have not
yet been released formally, but it is expected to be completed by the end of
News of this major DOE reversal comes at a time of growing concern about present and future energy resources, as well as debate over funding for controlled thermonuclear fusion research, that is, "hot" fusion. It also comes at a time when much discussion of the "hydrogen economy" and fuel cells fills the media. LENR research suggests, by contrast, that orders-of-magnitude more powerful energy reserves are associated with hydrogen than conventionally understood chemical energy models would allow. This ought to please open-minded environmentalists and others concerned about the future of the energy-environment problem and potential impacts on global climate.
Just as after the original announcements by chemists Drs. Martin Fleischmann and B. Stanley Pons at the University of Utah on March 23, 1989 and by physicist Steven E. Jones at Brigham Young University subsequently, this disclosure by the U.S. DOE is certain to prompt intense controversy and expectation. The great difference this time, however, is that a much larger body of excellent published experimental work now exists from researchers around the globe, which the DOE should be compelled to examine in its review. By right, this review should have happened a decade ago < but better late than never. In our view, the body of supporting evidence for large magnitude excess heat and nuclear products in "cold fusion" is so solid at this time that it would essentially be intellectually impossible for an objective DOE panel to come to other than a very positive conclusion about the evidence and the prospect of technological applications. Of course, it is quite possible that bureaucratic, unethical machinations will again occur that will preclude such a reasonable outcome. We hope that does not happen.
Another difference between now and 1989: there are now operational experimental electrolytic and other excess energy cells in various laboratories in the US and abroad; these are producing repeatable, verifiable excess energy that cannot possibly be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. In some cases, for example, one watt of electrical input power goes into a closed cell and an output power of 3 to 4 watts of heat occurs for a prolonged time. Much more powerful cells have also been operated. There is evidence of helium-4 and helium-3 production, tritium production, low-level neutron emissions, charged particles, light emission spectral anomalies, the formation of unusual chemical compounds, and even the transmutation of heavy elements in what seems to be a mix of fusion- and fission-like reactions. Laser radiation, ultrasonic activation, and magnetic fields, among a variety of other stimuli, have been found to enhance LENR reactions. It appears that an entirely new realm of physics and chemistry is suggested by the expanding body of experimental evidence. There are almost certainly implications for biology and medicine too. Many of the scientific papers from the LENR field and other historical materials can now be freely downloaded from the websites: www.lenr-canr.org and from www.infinite-energy.com.
The confirmation of the DOE review came first in a draft article by Physics Today science journalist Toni Feder. This draft was circulated to several
LENR scientists, critics, and others who gave input to Ms. Feder. New Energy Foundation provided input to Ms. Feder and welcomed receipt of the draft article from her. The article is to appear in Physics Today's April 2004 issue, which should be out by the first week of April. Physics Today is published by the American Physical Society, an organization which by-and-large has not been open to the study of LENR phenomena, though it has allowed small sessions on the subject to be organized at its national meetings. In fact, the late LENR theorist, Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, resigned from the APS in the early 1990s because the APS journals refused to publish his theories about the possible mechanisms of cold fusion.
The first popular journal to publish the news of the impending DOE review is, however, the UK-based New Scientist. In its March 20, 2004 issue, which was received in the mail today (3/20) at New Energy Foundation here in Concord, New Hampshire, freelance journalist Ben Daviss reports in a short article in the "Upfront: News in perspective" section (p.6), that James Decker, deputy director of the DOE's Office of Science, "has pledged to review evidence from the past 15 years of research in the controversial field." Daviss also writes, "The study could be completed by January 2005 and might open up the possibility of funding for cold fusion research projects."
There is additional high-level scientific support for the DOE review: Former DOE Office of Science Director, Dr. Mildred Dresselhaus (an MIT Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) is quoted in the Physics Today article: "I think scientists should be open-minded. Historically, many things get overturned with time." Prof. Dresselhaus was on the original ERAB (Energy Research Advisory Board) Cold Fusion Panel in 1989, which rendered a highly negative and very premature report on November 1, 1989. Though over the years she has not been one of the highly antagonistic critics of LENR with which that panel was packed, she did not assist approaches to the DOE for LENR reconsideration, during her brief position at DOE in the Clinton Administration years. This is a welcome turn-around for MIT Prof. Dresselhaus, for which we commend her.
The initiative that helped launch the impending review was a letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham from MIT Professor Peter Hagelstein, a cold fusion theorist since 1989. Prof. Hagelstein chaired ICCF10, The Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, which was held in Cambridge, MA and in part at MIT, August 24-29, 2003. Solid demonstrations of excess power in electrolytic cells were exhibited on the MIT campus by two scientific groups. It was shortly after ICCF10 that Prof. Hagelstein wrote to Spencer Abraham. New Energy Foundation's journal, Infinite Energy Magazine, decided to published Hagelstein's letter in its November/December 2003 issue (Vol.9, No.52, p.46).
Prof. Hagelstein told the U.S. Secretary of Energy that Wall Street Journal reporter Sharon Begley, who had attended ICCF10 for a few days, concluded in her "Science Journal" column of September 5, 2005, "that perhaps most problematic about the conference was not what was presented and discussed at the conference, but the lack of interest on the part of the scientific community." The Begley column was titled: "Cold Fusion Isn't Dead, It's Just Withering from Scientific Neglect." The door to DOE was evidently further opened by Randall Hekman, who is an MIT graduate (1969), a former judge, and an energy entrepreneur (Hekman Industries). Hekman knows Spencer Abraham and Republican Congressman Vern Ehlers from Michigan, who is a physicist. Ehlers is quoted in the Physics Today article that it is time for a new review "because there is enough work going on and some of the scientists in the area are from respected institutions."
One potential minefield for an honest review of the LENR evidence, apart from the bias and well known hostility of the pathological skeptics, is the raising of the straw man of the alleged "requirement" for comprehensive microphysical explanation of LENR phenomena before the experimental data can be accepted. That is a well-known anti-scientific tactic that the pathological skeptics have employed for years. There have been many proposed theories to explain the evidence < both the excess heat and the nuclear products - but no single theory appears yet to encompass ALL the evidence. That is not an unusual condition on the frontiers of physics and science in general, which the critics pretend to forget. So, our strongest advice for a fundamental ground rule for the DOE review is that the review should focus primarily on determining this key finding: the validity of the evidence for non-chemical magnitude excess heat and nuclear anomalies < as well as any other physical anomalies associated with the systems, such as anomalies in light emission. Involved judgments about how the verified phenomena operate should be reserved for the future.
In May 1991, this author (Eugene Mallove) wrote in Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor (John Wiley & Sons):
³After reviewing mounting evidence from cold fusion experiments, I am persuaded that it provides a compelling indication that a new kind of nuclear process is at work. I would say that the evidence is *overwhelmingly compelling* that cold fusion is a real, new nuclear process capable of significant excess power generation...There is yet no proved nuclear explanation for the excess heat. That excess heat exists is amply proved.² (From the Preface, p. xv)
This conclusion of 1991, in the first book in the world which presented a positive evaluation of the discovery, was based on already very, very solid evidence. Now the DOE review panel has much more evidence to back up that same conclusion. It remains valid in 2004 as it was in 1991. Another excellent book, which reviews the entire cold fusion saga, is by MIT-trained engineer Charles Beaudette (MIT '52), Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2002 edition, available at www.infinite-energy.com)
Furthermore, it is the view of this author (perhaps not shared by many in the LENR field) that the DOE review as part of its task should examine other significant New Energy-related research that has been published, beyond what is ordinarily confined within the LENR field (www.lenr-canr.org). This research is almost certain to shed significant light on what has been found within LENR proper. In particular, there are three primary websites where such closely-related technical information and can be obtained:
(New Energy Foundation, Inc.)
www.blacklightpower.com (BlackLight Power Corporation)
www.aetherometry.com (Labofex and Aurora Biophysics Research Inst.)
As an additional assist to the prospective DOE review, a Memorandum to the White House from this author (requested by President Clinton's staff in February 2000, following the urging of our supporter Sir Arthur C. Clarke) has been posted at www.infinite-energy.com. Review panelists and concerned citizens should examine this document. It provides a concise historical and technical overview of the scientific problem of energy from water, titled "The Strange Birth of the Water Fuel Age." Unfortunately, neither the Clinton Administration nor the present Bush Administration acted on the suggestions of this Memorandum, until the present impending review, which was separately prompted by Professor Hagelstein's letter. We sincerely praise U.S. Secretary of Energy Spenser Abraham for facilitating this landmark decision to launch a review.
Concerned citizens (and especially MIT graduates) should also examine the 55-page report about the events at MIT in the early days of the cold fusion controversy < a free downloadable pdf-file at www.infinite-energy.com
As a final note: Though we very much appreciate that DOE will be carrying out a review of the LENR evidence, we do not need DOE's imprint and approval to realize that we are dealing with a critical frontier of scientific and technological research that has been validated long ago. Funding for New Energy research is needed NOW, not in 9 or 10 months! The DOE review is in some sense at best a corrective to a severe "political problem" that has occurred within the house of official science and in mainstream scientific publication. Therefore, we urge readers of this message to consider charitable contributions to the New Energy Foundation (a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation). These contributions already have made possible scientific research grants to New Energy investigators < especially within LENR, as well as on-going scientific publication efforts: books, magazines, video tapes, DVD's, etc. For example, New Energy Foundation helped fund the ICCF10 conference in Cambridge, MA last August, which helped lead to the DOE review breakthrough. ICCF11, which will be in Marseilles, France October 31-November 5, 2004 (www.iccf11.org) is also in need of financial support from New Energy Foundation.
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove (MIT SB'69, SM'70; Harvard Sc.D. 1975)
President, New Energy Foundation, Inc.
(A Non-profit, 501(c)(3) Corporation)
Editor-in-Chief, Infinite Energy Magazine
PO Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816
Tel: 603-485-4700, Fax: 603-485-4710